Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (7651)	8/23/2001 7:05:35 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

hi Maurice Winn, i don't understand your continued focus on QCOM as some kind of savior for the US on a macroeconomic level. i'll admit it is funny (most people making this line of argument would pick the multihundred-billion-dollar auto sector or the home sector to save the economy, not the 4-billion-dollar leader of a minor digital wireless standard), but perhaps not in the way you intended. to recap, you wrote QUALCOMM ships a lot of the dollars home as profits, pays taxes to USS Enterprise to maintain the system to which i posted a detailed reply which, like my other replies, you seem unable to respond to except with analogies containing logical flaws, and i included (unlike you) various FACTs from QCOM's 10-K (e.g., QCOM states, "Cash amounts paid for income taxes were $44 million, $68 million and $58 million for fiscal 2000, 1999 and 1998, respectively".). this of course contridicts your thesis of QCOM paying LOTS of taxes. confronted with that reality, you have decided to fall back on the ole' multiplier effect. i then explained to you why it is a fallacy to get obsessed with multiplier effects of taxation, since that ends up with the logical absurdity of an aggregate which is a multiplier of itself. i could continue on with arguments about macro and/or QCOM, but i prefer to debate facts against facts, not against hypothetical (though amusing) arguments.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (7651)	8/23/2001 9:21:32 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Maurice, I can't resist barging in here. Your argument is essentially that QCOM contributes roughly $4 billion to the GNP and since about 40% of GNP goes into the government's coffers, that's how much QCOM contributes to the government. It's a fine argument, but one can turn it around as follows: the fact that QCOM exists is the main reason that there is not a single mobile phone standard in the US, and this is why mobile phone penetration in the US is about half of what it is in some other developed countries. If QCOM did not exist, mobile phone penetration would be much higher and the resulting increase in GNP would be much much more than QCOM's $4 billion contribution. Kyros